Using GW's LOTR minatures...

This is a forum for discussing the use of the Field of Glory gaming system to play fantasy battles. This is not an official product! yet ;)

Moderator: Slitherine Core

Post Reply
Herr77
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:52 pm

Using GW's LOTR minatures...

Post by Herr77 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:22 pm

Hey everyone,

I'm new to FOG. I'm trying to work out how to play Middle Earth FOG with my current collection of Games Workshop's War of the Ring miniatures.

The main problem I'm having right now is working out how to base the armies properly. The round bases they're all stuck on are the issue. The miniatures don't really seem to fit very well onto a 60mm frontge base. You can fit up to 2 infantry on a base which looks OK, but isn't really ideal. But theres no way you can fit more than one cavalry miniature onto a 60mm base, because they're stuck on 40mm round bases, unless you increase the depth rather than the frontage, but then they're not going to conform to the base sizes in the rules...

Whats everyone doing to overcome these basing issues?

Anyone have any pictures of a LOTR army bases for FOG?

Ranimiro
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:58 pm

Post by Ranimiro » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:39 pm

You should be thinking in UNITS instead of bases.

A 2 base width unit has a frontage of 120 mm. So you can fit 3 cavalry models there (with your current basing system) And between 5 and 6 infantry (with 25mm or 20 mm basing). SO if you limit yourself and your opponents to 2 or 4 base width units for FoG you shouldn´t have a serious problem.

Seriously... ROUND, INDIVIDUAL bases for a strategic game with massed infantry like War of The Ring? GW has done it againg... I thought they had moved forward and where using a more adequate basing system

Herr77
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:52 pm

Post by Herr77 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:46 am

Thanks for the response Ranimiro.

Without having actually played a FOG game yet its difficult for me to envisage how important it is to have the correct bases and how much trouble it is going to cause if the armies are not based correctly.

My armies are currently based on the GW War of the Ring basing system, which is like this:

Image

I'm thinking that one infantry movement tray will essentially be the equivalent of 4 FOG bases (each "base" measuring 55mmx30mm and containing 2 miniatures) and the cavalry trays I will turn around so that the front will be the 50mm side. They'll be way too deep at 90mm that they should actually be. But I think that this is the best thing to do, and gets me as close to the perfect frontage as I'm going to be able to get with my collection (I have loads of these GW LOTR movement trays).

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Post by ravenflight » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:43 pm

Herr77 wrote:Without having actually played a FOG game yet its difficult for me to envisage how important it is to have the correct bases and how much trouble it is going to cause if the armies are not based correctly.
Ultimately, with the basic rules system in FoG, BASES matter. It doesn't matter how the bases are formed, so long as everyone who is playing uses the same base sizes. You could have 1 figure on a 12"x12" square base and still play the game ok, as the frontage of 12" would be the same for your opponent as well. When you went into contact you could determine how many bases were fighting etc.

So, in your above example, it would be fine BUT a battle group would need to be made up of several bases.

Now, you COULD say that two figures make up a 'base' and so that stand at the front has four bases, but that's going to form problems with stepping forward and with formation changes.

What I would probably do is work out the following.

How are you going to represent:

Light mounted.
Heavy mounted.
Light foot.
Heavy foot.

If you can get over the aesthetics of 1 figure being 'light' and two figures being 'heavy', then that's fine. Just make up some more trays like you already have and chuck your figures on at the agreed ratio.

Work out what base size works for you and go for it.

You'll probably have to muck around a bit with how far measured distances are, but just work it back from the rules (in other words if you have an 80mm frontage (which is double the 15mm frontage) then perhaps double the distance things can move... and get a bigger table).

Have fun.

darthsmaul
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: West Fargo, ND
Contact:

Post by darthsmaul » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:09 pm

the figs in the picture come out of the bases so they are not fixed in place, just to clarify since you had said

"Now, you COULD say that two figures make up a 'base' and so that stand at the front has four bases, but that's going to form problems with stepping forward and with formation changes."

which lead me to believe you thought they could not be changed

just letting you know
like games? I do too, checkout my gaming blog and leave a comment or two. www.fungamesroom.com

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Post by ravenflight » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:58 pm

smaul wrote:the figs in the picture come out of the bases so they are not fixed in place, just to clarify since you had said

"Now, you COULD say that two figures make up a 'base' and so that stand at the front has four bases, but that's going to form problems with stepping forward and with formation changes."

which lead me to believe you thought they could not be changed

just letting you know
No, the problem is that bases have to be separate in the rules to 'step forward' into combat. It could probably be worked out 'as if they did' so to speak, but the bases actually have to move, so you couldn't have a 'double base' and get away with it.

If that makes sense. It will probably make sense once yo'uve played teh game a bit.

darthsmaul
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: West Fargo, ND
Contact:

Post by darthsmaul » Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:34 pm

I was just meaning that the figs come off that base and could be put on some other bases individually, but reading your post again, in the 2nd half sounded like you knew that could be put on a different base

my bad

steve
like games? I do too, checkout my gaming blog and leave a comment or two. www.fungamesroom.com

MatthewB
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Using GW's LOTR minatures...

Post by MatthewB » Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:45 am

Is there some reason that Herr77 isn't just removing the figures from their round bases and then putting them on the appropriate bases for FoG?

Personally, I don't find much use, currently, in trying to use the same miniatures for individual combat and for armies.

Thus, I have a separate set of miniatures, based appropriately for mass-combat, using FoG, and another set (much smaller, because I'm probably not going to be running games with 200 individuals on a side - some people do that, and they are going to have tremendous problems trying to use the same minis for both systems and still find opponents) for gaming with individual characters and fighters... Plus, I don't much care for ANY of GW's rules, so I don't really have but about 2-dozen "individuals" for those "just in case" moments.

But... for the record, it is a tight fit (especially for Cavalry), but the GW miniatures DO FIT on the 60mm frontages and depths stated in the FoG rule-book.

I have struggled with the issue of whether to re-base the couple of finished armies I have on 80mm frontages (with appropriate depths) due to the difficulties in basing some of the newer figures on the appropriate frontages (and with Thunderbolt Mountain miniatures; some of the Elves just don't quite fit on the 60mm frontages, and I just don't like the aesthetic of fewer figures on the bases - I might as well go with 80mm frontages, or spend eons converting all of the figures so that they fit on the damned 60mm frontages)... Or to continue basing them on 60mm frontages, cramming them in really tightly (or converting all of the figures, as I mentioned).

pyruse
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:32 am

Re: Using GW's LOTR minatures...

Post by pyruse » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:01 pm

40mm round bases for mounted is particularly bad, as it means you can't have close-ranked cavalry.
Oval or rectangular bases are much better for mounted.
But really, for a mass combat game you don't want individually based figures - best to rebase.

MatthewB
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Using GW's LOTR minatures...

Post by MatthewB » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:46 pm

I agree: Best to re-base.

I have two sets of miniatures: One for Mass Combat, based on DBx/FoG bases (save for the 28mm stuff, which are sort-of based with Dbx bases. They are based on 80mm frontages, with depth ratios that map to the 60mm frontages. For example: A Cavalry base with a 60mm frontage has a 40mm depth. That is a 1.5:1 ratio. So I just use the same ratio for an 80mm frontage, which works out to approximately 55mm. I just use a 60mm depth, because Litko doesn't make any 80mm frontages with 55mm depth). And another based individually for Skirmish combat.

Since few of the LotR battles with individual miniatures require more than about 20 to 40 of any miniature, I don't need many.

And, since I generally won't use their rules for spearmen or pikemen (you CAN'T use massed combat techniques with two or three people!), I don't need to worry about basing individual things like the Uruk-Hai pikemen, or a lot of spearmen. So that saves money for minis that won't get used.

MB

pyruse
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:32 am

Re: Using GW's LOTR minatures...

Post by pyruse » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:21 am

One other thing - I've found it is relatively easy to use multi-based figures for rules which require single basing - just mark casualties.
My (DBx/FoG) based figures work just fine for WAB for instance.
But I've found using single-based figures for rules requiring multiple basing a pain. If you attach them to sabots they always seem to come loose at the worst time.
So unless you are exclusively going to play skirmish games, multi-base your figures, particularly those who only ever fought in formation like close order infantry or cavalry.

MatthewB
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Using GW's LOTR minatures...

Post by MatthewB » Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:37 am

pyruse wrote:One other thing - I've found it is relatively easy to use multi-based figures for rules which require single basing - just mark casualties.
My (DBx/FoG) based figures work just fine for WAB for instance.
But I've found using single-based figures for rules requiring multiple basing a pain. If you attach them to sabots they always seem to come loose at the worst time.
So unless you are exclusively going to play skirmish games, multi-base your figures, particularly those who only ever fought in formation like close order infantry or cavalry.
You didn't just post this same thing over on TMP did you?

I just saw a post over there that said the same thing.

And, I agree with you. One of the bonuses I have found for basing my 28mm stuff on an 80mm frontage is that I can use them pretty easily for WAB.

I really wish that I could get them on 60mm frontages more easily. Technically, I can cram the GW LotR stuff, and Thunderbolt Mountain stuff on a 60mm frontage, with the correct number of figures for Infantry, but the Cavalry just won't fit without a LOT of modification.

Which is really weird... Because I have seen some 40mm figures that are sculpted with more realistic proportions than most miniatures that will fit on a 60mm frontage.

Matthew Bailey

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Swords & Sorcery : General Discussion”